This case was last updated from PACER on 06/08/2021 at 08:18:13 (UTC).

Jeff Tyler v. Canoo Inc. et al

Case Summary

On April 9, 2021, Jeff Tyler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, (“Plaintiff”), represented by Jennifer Pafiti of Pomerantz LLP, filed a class action complaint against Canoo Inc., Tony Aquila, Ulrich Kranz, and Paul Balciunas, (“Defendants”), seeking damages, together with interest and costs, for allegedly defrauding the class members and violating the federal securities laws. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with Judges Jean P. Rosenbluth and Fernando M. Olguin presiding. 

 

The Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Canoo common stock and/or warrants from August 18, 2020, through and including March 29, 2021.

 

In its complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that “During the Class Period, as detailed herein, the Individual Defendants engaged in a scheme to deceive the market and a course of conduct that artificially inflated the Company’s common stock and warrant prices, and operated as a fraud or deceit on acquirers of the Company’s common stock and warrants. As detailed above, when the truth about the Company’s financial situation was revealed, the Company’s common stock and warrants declined as the prior artificial inflation came out of its common stock price. That decline in Company’s common stock and warrant prices was a direct result of the nature and extent of the fraud finally being revealed to investors and the market. The timing and magnitude of the common stock and warrant prices decline negates any inference that the loss suffered by Plaintiff and other members of the Class was caused by changed market conditions, macroeconomic or industry factors or Company-specific facts unrelated to the fraudulent conduct. The economic loss, i.e., damages, suffered by the Plaintiff and other Class members was a direct result of the fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the Company’s common stock and warrant prices and the subsequent significant decline in the value of the Company’s common stock and warrants when the prior misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct were revealed.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that “At all times relevant, Defendants’ materially false and misleading statements or omissions alleged herein directly or proximately caused the damages suffered by the Plaintiff and other Class members. Those statements were materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose a true and accurate picture of the Company's business, operations and financial condition, as alleged herein.”

 

The Plaintiff even further alleged that “Plaintiff and other Class members purchased Company’s common stock and warrant prices at those artificially inflated prices, causing them to suffer the damages complained of herein.”

 

There are two claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff against all defendants. The first claim is for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder; the second claim is for alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

 

In its prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to determine this action to be a proper class action and certify Plaintiff as class representative; award compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class members, together with interest; award Plaintiff the fees and expenses, including reasonable allowance of fees for Plaintiff’s attorneys and experts; and grant extraordinary equitable and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.




Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    2:21-CV-03080

  • Filing Date:

    04/09/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Finance - Security/Commodity/Exchange

Judge Details

Referral Judge

Jean P. Rosenbluth

Presiding Judge

Fernando M. Olguin

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Jeff Tyler

Defendants

Ulrich Kranz

Canoo Inc.

Tony Aquila

Paul Balciunas

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Jennifer Pafiti

Attorney at Pomerantz LLP

1100 Glendon Avenue 15Th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90024

 

Court Documents

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

#8

#9

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/16/2021
  • Docket(#10) TEXT ONLY ENTRY by Chambers of Judge Fernando M. Olguin. This matter has been assigned to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin. The Court refers counsel to the Court's Initial Standing Order found on the Court's Website under Judge Olguin's Procedures and Schedules. Please read this Order carefully. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (vdr) TEXT ONLY ENTRY (Entered: 04/16/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) ORDER RE TRANSFER PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 21-01-Related Case- filed. Related Case No: 2:21-cv-02873 FMO (JPRx). Case transferred from Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott to Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth for all further proceedings. The case number will now reflect the initials of the transferee Judge 2:21-cv-03080 FMO (JPRx). Signed by Magistrate Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth (esa) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) NOTICE OF PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION DUE for Non-Resident Attorney Corey D. Holzer. A document recently filed in this case lists you as an out-of-state attorney of record. However, the Court has not been able to locate any record that you are admitted to the Bar of this Court, and you have not filed an application to appear Pro Hac Vice in this case. Accordingly, within 5 business days of the date of this notice, you must either (1) have your local counsel file an application to appear Pro Hac Vice (Form G-64) and pay the applicable fee, or (2) complete the next section of this form and return it to the court at cacd_attyadm@cacd.uscourts.gov. You have been removed as counsel of record from the docket in this case, and you will not be added back to the docket until your Pro Hac Vice status has been resolved. (lh) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) 21 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendants Tony Aquila, Paul Balciunas, Canoo Inc., Ulrich Kranz. (lh) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (lh) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/12/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Fernando M. Olguin and Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (lh) (Entered: 04/12/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Jeff Tyler, (Pafiti, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Jeff Tyler. (Pafiti, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Jeff Tyler. (Pafiti, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT Receipt No: ACACDC-31079319 - Fee: $402, filed by Plaintiff Jeff Tyler. (Attorney Jennifer Pafiti added to party Jeff Tyler(pty:pla))(Pafiti, Jennifer) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CANOO INC. F/K/A EVELOZCITY FKA EVELOZCITY A DELAWARE CORPORATION is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer Jennifer Pafiti